Now I've seen Delta do this in the past and within a year they completely pulled everything back. I personally feel that this is going to be the case again with the exception of a few markets.

The only announcement I'm not terribly surprised to see is the upgrade to 6x mainline on LAX-LAS. It's heavily saturated and competing with RJs on a route that is already filled to the brink with mainline service is probably not the way to go and in order for Delta to make their voice heard in this market probably warrants the upgrade.

So do you think this is a failure in the making? Or could it work this time?

This question is asked everytime they add to LAX........never know. There will always be people saying this time its for real and this time there serious about LAX. We wont know until time goes by. I don't even know if Delta knows yet it never seems that have a clear plan for LAX

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2):DL at LAX = NK at just about everywhere: Build up...reap some profits...cut and run.

I doubt DL or NK are profiting much by starting flights then cutting them. They are just testing routes out and discovering if there is enough business or not. It takes a little time for a route to take hold so it is not as if there is pent up demand that is relieved and then they can drop it.

LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates. WN is the largest domestic carrier at LAX while UA and AA consider it a hub. Just about every major international carrier flies there, including many superior Asian carriers. The Southern California weather and unobstructed approach allow the four parallel runways to operate at full capacity almost all the time so that a mini hub operation is possible, the limit is the gates.

DL has two big international flights, SYD and HND, to support this time vs. other times when they've ventured into the LAX market. DL also has a large investment in the transcon market to JFK to build upon.

The dynamics of their competition is different this time, too. UA is still choking down its merger with CO, and AA is about to exit BK and leap into their merger with US.

No, it's due to how scripting works. I can highlight your text again, then click on anyone else's "Select Text Quoted" button, and it will appear as if they were being quoted. It's called « user error ».

Example:

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):If I clicked on your post, why did HIS sentence show up??

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):I don't think UA considers LAX a hub. They moved substantial operations to SFO a few years ago, and they are left with a majority of Skywest regional jets to almost all West Coast markets from LAX.

UA does consider LAX a hub. AA considers it part of their "cornerstone." DL probably considers it a focus city but I haven't seen anything that officially classifies it as such (outside of third party reporting).

However it's all subjective - there is no industry or official definition of a hub so it's up to the airlines to call an operation a "hub."

Though, like most of you I am skepical of how long this lasts giving DL track record. I feel there are a couple things that show this is going to stick.

First, co-locating with AS. This is quite significant as you don't have to clear security to transfer to and AS flight or vise versa. This will increase the number of AS/DL and DL/AS itineraries significantly I think.

Second, They are increasing the PHX, SMF, and OAK markets. This shows that not only are they working but they are working well. Delta wouldn't add an additional flight to these markets if they were failing, they would have held the 4 daily that they have.

Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders. They have shown with their decisions that they are looking at the long haul. They aren't making quick decisions to make a quick buck. Surely there will be times when routes don't work (i.e. DTW-HKG). But you need to take some risks, and I am sure there will be some routes out of LAX that don't work either, but that doesn't mean they will cut tail and run because they are in it for the long haul.

For what it's worth, I think AA recognizes this too, with a few of their most recent changes in LAX. They added PHX around the same time as DL. I think AA realizes that this isn't the DL build up of old.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):The dynamics of their competition is different this time.

DL has, to a degree, parlayed AA's LAX playbook into what appears to be a winning venture. The Skyteam and unaligned international partners have increased DL's traffic. AS has been valuable - particularly for the SYD flight. Just synergistic momentum.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 4):LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates.

LAX is about 10 gates below that threshold due to gate closures/retirements that are grandfathered into that community agreement. Considering DL's current fleet mix at LAX, they could, in theory, add back the 3 gates decommissioned in T-5.

But, with LAWA's gate usage clause, the current 16 gates (13 in T5, 3 in T6) should suffice for now.

To digress a bit, I've always felt that DL miscued at LAX with the NW merger. DL obtained NW's interest in T-2 and quite possibly could've locked up T-3, which was in play at the time.

Quoting mayor (Reply 8):IIRC, there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.

From the time WA began building up LAX (circa 1983), approximately 25 mainline flights were added. That peaked at, IIRC, 85 weekday, peak season (Summer, 1985) mainline departures. At the time of the merger, WA was still at about 75-80 such departures.

I think DL stands a better shot this time around than previous attempts.

I think some of their more "marginal" LAX flying is likely to struggle going forward - just as it did in attempts past - but the "core" local western U.S. markets (e.g., PHX, SEA, SFO, LAS, SAN, etc.) that have a strong local component to/from LAX and/or a strong onward connecting component to transcons/NRT/HND/SYD/CDG/partner flights are likely to survive.

I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.

Quoting commavia (Reply 17):I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.

I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DLLAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 18):I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DLLAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.

What I was referring to is the huge number of 50-seaters that DL is planning to pull out of their system over the next few years. I suspect that some of that capacity will be backfilled by precisely some of the 2-cabin CR7s and CR9s now flying in and out of LAX on some of these extremely high-frequency routes DL is now operating with DCI.

Quoting UALAX (Reply 19):After all UA has a much larger operation at SFO and UA could reduce or cancel intra-West flights from LAX in favor of its San Francisco operation.

UA is already a shadow of what it once was at LAX, and has majorly shifted west coast emphasis to SFO in the last decade. It's actually rather amazing when you look at it in certain individual markets - on lots of the big or biggish western U.S. routes UA used to dominate or be strong in from LAX - like LAS, PHX, SLC, SJC, TUS, SMF, ABQ, etc. - AA (and in some cases also DL) are now larger than UA.

To be sure - UA is still a huge force in the LAX market, but the gap between it and its competitors (especially AA) has dramatically closed since 9/11. And post-merger, before any network optimization/rationalization, AA will - for the first time in at least decades - be larger at LAX than UA.

If DL can do it more power to them. On transcon flts they will be competing with AA
to NY which has a better product in my opinion and to a lesser extent UA. What else
is there left that isn't saturated with competition.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 13):Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders.

Agree. They really think outside the box and are at least willing to try things.

In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AVCM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 23):In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AVCM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...

Is this just wild speculation? AV just joined Star, at some considerable expense. And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?

Quoting aaway (Reply 16):AS has been valuable - particularly for the SYD flight.

Are you sure? AS and QF codeshare, and indeed AS is a partner in Qantas Frequent Flyer

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 24):Is this just wild speculation? AV just joined Star, at some considerable expense. And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?

Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21):
What I was referring to is the huge number of 50-seaters that DL is planning to pull out of their system over the next few years. I suspect that some of that capacity will be backfilled by precisely some of the 2-cabin CR7s and CR9s now flying in and out of LAX on some of these extremely high-frequency routes DL is now operating with DCI.

If it means anything, I understood what you meant but let's not forget that overall, capacity will be about neutral if not slightly up when it's all said and done counting all the 717s and 739s. Let's not forget that they already have a firm order for 40 more CR9s that will be coming online in the quarters to come alongside the 717s from FL and the 739s. With all of this happening, MD90 conversions are ongoing. DL also put it out there that they are/will be on the market for used 738s/320s.

From a scheduling perspective, it doesn't take much to offer say 10-12x daily CR9s on say LAX-LAS which is what they've been doing for a while. Many times they will do it with only 2 or 3 a/c. The same ones flying back and forth all day.

and they can flex up capacity with the 739(not park some older aircraft) and they still have room for 30 76-seaters.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

I am 99.9% sure UA doesn't own any part of CM....but unless they own 51%(which I know they don't) it doesn't mean jack s**t what the airplane looks like. If CM would make more money, thus better for the stockholders, then they will go to Sky or One. period.

Quoting Mercure1 (Reply 6):Seems they should never have destroyed what Western left them in hindsight as its taking lots of money and time to try to recreate things year after year.

Were this 1993, I might agree with you. But DL+WA was a quarter century ago. A lot has transpired between then and now, so I find it hard to accept that they made a mistake by downsizing at LAX. They simply had other more important goals for their airline. Eastern was still around. We had the first Gulf War. The Ron Allen years. The recession. 9/11. Afghanistan/Iraq. Skyrocketing oil. A much larger WN (plus others). The current recession. And on and on....

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

I know lots of folks at both airlines. They hate each other. Both thought the other would blink regarding star and both felt like their respective partners (UA for CM and LH for AV/TA) would support them in getting the other (AV or CM) out.

It Lat Am machismo is above else.

I would say one will announce its exit star within 2 years. IMHO that will be AV. CM seems to working with the rest of the group much better.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 36):AA will be hard to beat on the LAX-NYC route. With the new cabins and 321's
replacing the 762's the frequency will be higher.

That said DL has potential at LAX. They have to be smart this time
around to be successful.

From a passenger standpoint, DL will be on par if not superior because there are now (or soon will be) a few 767-300's with brand new interiors and flat-bed direct-aisle access J seats flying that route just as AA will shift to all narrow body A321 service. The remaining DL flights will be on 757's with interiors just a few years old. All flights in both classes will have service and amenities equivalent to DL's long-haul international product. I agree AA may trump slightly on frequency, but DL's product will be extremely competitive. Time will tell, but DL seems to have thought this out better than its previous LAX build-ups, and I'm sure they're taking advantage of the distractions AA (and still UA to a degree) are will experience with merger integration.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 39):Time will tell, but DL seems to have thought this out better than its previous LAX build-ups, and I'm sure they're taking advantage of the distractions AA (and still UA to a degree) are will experience with merger integration.

Delta learnt alot last time around at LAX, and while they saw lots of promise they wern't in a position financially (and perhaps leadership wise) to stick it out while the LAX routes matured.

This time round they have time, leadership and money.

I am really going to go out on a limb now as say IF they can get LAX to work reasonably well, they will take a stab at MIA too.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37):Were this 1993, I might agree with you. But DL+WA was a quarter century ago. A lot has transpired between then and now, so I find it hard to accept that they made a mistake by downsizing at LAX.

Western was getting killed at LAX. That's why they moved their primary hub to SLC.

I wonder if 717s will be taking over the short haul flying out of LAX.

What about running an all biz jet NYC - LAX? I'm thinking something like MAXJet did Transatlantic or MartinAir runs IAHAMS (an all biz seat 737). While there would be fewer pax, the fact that only premium seats are sold on the flight would help offset the costs.

Also - with less pax luggage - more money could be made on the cargo carried.

While I doubt the route could support all J cabin, what about 1 or 2 flights a day?

With DL stepping up in LAX hopefully this will force AA to as well. Selfishly, as an AS MVP Gold, I get to reap the benefits of such a competition (and don't turn this comment into a DL should buy AS debate). My point being, whether DL sticks to the LAX expansion or not, the extra competition is good for consumers.

Quoting davescj (Reply 42):While I doubt the route could support all J cabin, what about 1 or 2 flights a day?

Unfortunately no one has been able to figure out how to make money with a premium-only configured aircraft for a sustainable period of time. Closest examples are BA's Concorde and SQ's A345... and they're debatable.

The first three questions I would have for an all J 737 on JFK-LAX-JFK 1-2 flights a day would be:
1) could we sell enough seats at a price to earn a decent margin?
2) could we keep the aircraft utilized (aircraft not in the air don't make money)?
3) could the aircraft be more profitably utilized some other way?

Quoting davescj (Reply 50):SFO, SEA, PDX, SLC already have service to one or both airports.

Woud LAX get built up before the others? My gut would be to say yes, but I am not sure how fast anything will be arriving.

If they want to build up LAX I think they would. LAX has lots of O&D, air travel as a whole generally goes up over time, and LAX may be tapping into markets the SEA, PDX, and SLC aren't. Not too sure of SLC's Central/South America operation, but if LAX gets a lot of CA/SA feed, there may be enough feed for more European flights

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49):If DL does successfully expand at LAX, I'm sure the demand would be there and more flights would be added. Wether it would be DL metal or AF/KL metal is another story

And, where would Delta go? HKG, LHR, etc.?

In reply 16, aaway explained what is driving this expansion. It is the AA playbook at LAX. Domestic growth in short haul western markets as a result of capturing more of the traffic flows generated by its alliance partners at LAX.

In short, the international flights are already being flown by Delta's partners.

Given the strategy driving this expansion, I don't see how it is feasible for Delta to start infiltrating the hubs of non-alliance partners. So, the question remains, where would Delta go?

They can add more flights to existing cities, it doesn't have to be a new city every time. I doubt there would be many flights to Europe minus the usual AMS and CDG. Of course, with the JV, it could be AF or KL adding the flights

To me, the future for DL across the Pacific must involve a JV with KAL and leverage the ICN hub.

As far LAX, this means things are very nicely covered already as KE has route served 3x daily.

So along with existing double daily Delta service to Japan, plus Skyteam partners to China and Taiwan all the largest markets are covered with exception of HKG. However I don't see DL with its tiny single daily flight presence at HKG being able to muster a LAX nonstop against CX or other competition like UA.

Anyhow - I think we are seeing DL its making SEA is Pacific gateway, not LAX.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60):To me, the future for DL across the Pacific must involve a JV with KAL and leverage the ICN hub.

I've thought about this too. I would imagine a JV with KE is key to DL's holistic international growth plan, especially across the Pacific. If this were to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if the connecting traffic over NRT is drawn down and shifted to ICN while DL increases HND as much as possible for better yielding Tokyo traffic. I guess that could be a separate thread in of itself.

As for LAX, I haven't see anyone mention an increase to Australia (LAX-MEL? LAX-BNE?) or perhaps the addition of AKL.

Quoting davescj (Reply 25):It would be interesting to see if T5 and T6 could merge and have more gates, or a better/more effective use of gates.

There cannot be more gates due to the consent decree. T6 is one of the shared airport owned terminals, except for the UA/CO gates, so with AS moving in, there are only a few gates that are possibly available.

I agree that DL wont make a try on the LAX-MIA. They already have
one daily flight. That's as far as I think they will go. AA has to much of
an advantage on that route. AA will definitely defend its turf at MIA.

That's like saying AA starting LAX-ATL. They might have one flight
but in the long run wouldnt be successful.

The last paragraph of this story is interesting. Some 25+ years later, and the major airlines are still grappling with evolving into becoming true national airlines in their own right. DL's push into LAX is a lingering part of that effort, and DL may just become the first to achieve that lofty goal from so long ago. Can't fault them for at least trying.

Would LAX-AKL be a viable route for Delta? Or is this a market which would be profitable for only one carrier (NZ)? Delta's A330-200s are/were being modified for 12hr+ missions and QF was using the aircraft on this route prior to it being discontinued.

I can see DL using a two gateway approach for the west coast: LAX for Hawaii and the south Pacific and SEA for Asia.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 66):The last paragraph of this story is interesting. Some 25+ years later, and the major airlines are still grappling with evolving into becoming true national airlines in their own right. DL's push into LAX is a lingering part of that effort, and DL may just become the first to achieve that lofty goal from so long ago. Can't fault them for at least trying.

How is that? No Chicago and no Texas network? Even from LAX, still no ORD and DFW, and Boston is only seasonal.

I didn't make the case for that LAX was the end of the line in this effort, but it would put DL closest, in my view. There's certainly more work to do. (I have posted in the past that I believe LAX-ORD is the next major step DL will take in this area.)

Quoting mia305 (Reply 70):DL starting LAX-ORD will be tough being that UA & AA have that covered pretty well.

It's my belief that LAX-ORD, plus a few others, will be important for DL to continue to win corporate contracts in the LA market. They don't have to fly it hourly, but at least make some effort to see where they may fit in to support their corporate clients.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 66):Some 25+ years later, and the major airlines are still grappling with evolving into becoming true national airlines in their own right

Please define what you mean a true national airline. As I seee it, there never has been a national airline in the US and don't see it as happening in the future. There are currently 3 major airlines in the US plus WN.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 70):DL starting LAX-ORD will be tough being that UA & AA have that covered pretty well

It seems ORD has always been and always will be a tweener market for DL. They try to find ways to fit in and it sometimes works and sometimes doesnt. I loved the LGA-MDW ERJ flights from the Marine Terminal and was on them regularly a few years ago. And then they'd shift away entirely to JFK-ORD and then they'd circle the wagons again and try something else.

There's no escaping the fact that in order to reach critical mass for originating pax from LAX you need to fly to where they want to fly to non-stop with sufficient frequency. That's more or less a dozen must-have domestic markets from LAX including competitive blood-baths like PHX, LAS and ORD/MDW (it's easy to forget about WN's capacity into MDW; it's a factor).

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 72):Please define what you mean a true national airline.

In going back to the CS Monitor article, I misquoted them. The word used was "nationwide" rather than "national". A small point, but I can see how that may be confusing.

My definition of an airline which would fit this category would be one which covered and connected the major geographic regions of the United States, plus a worthwhile transcon network. DL is pretty much closing in on that distinction, especially with recent growth in the Pacific NW, Southern California, and the Northeast/JFK. That's on top of their international service to is it 6 continents now? Beginning to fill in some of their other blind spots, such as direct flights between the major midwest business centers and the coasts, would truly bring them to a fully comprehensive network, ahead of UA or AA.

diverdave WA was doing quite well after we restructured. We did not move the hub to SLC from LAX ,quite the opposit was the case. WA was in a growth mode in LAX and the SLC hub plan was to continue the growth by offering another hub. Additionally the SLC hub was used to make WA more attractive for partnering/merging. This is what we were told. The LAX hub grew to over 140 flights per day as I recall.... All WA metal .....more when we counted the Skywest flights.
It was a glorious time for Wally Bird....

Quoting mia305 (Reply 70):Even though DL has a JV with KLM, AF they should try more
european routes.

Don't forget LHR too once the VS deal is finalized.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 73):While I agree with you that DL has to try LAX-ORD. UA & AA pretty much have
those contracts locked up. They have a better chance trying LAX-MIA.

They already fly LAXMIA. I do think DL could be successful adding ORD, IAH, DFW, & Washington DC if they can attract enough California originating traffic. IIRC, they still have somewhat of a FF base in Dallas which could help any LAX flights.

Actually JFK is very convenient nowadays with Air Train. I've done it from Long Island and it is the easiest thing in the world. It's only about half an hour with the LIRR and Air Train. Getting to EWR by public transport is about the same.

HKG and PEK (with LHR now covered) are the two biggest holes for DL/SkyTeam at LAX.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 63):MEL and BNE nonstops are already covered with the alliance with Virgin Australia.

Yes but both are less than daily IIRC. It has been the rumor for the longest time that DL would move a 744 to SYD and add MEL daily with the LR. (and have VA 1) go daily on BNE or 2) add extra MEL frequencies on peak days.)

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60):DL with its tiny single daily flight presence at HKG being able to muster a LAX nonstop against CX

But they have to start somewhere. Its like DTW, It may work.....once DL grows in HKG. IMO, LAX and SEA are two places DL will look at to re-start mainland-HKG flights.

A LAX, NRT, SEA flight would be a very solid presence for DL at HKG. Like i said above, maybe then DTW would be viable... (I am not in the JFK-HKG camp like some, I think JFK-China is a good idea for Delta, but that would take widebody growth.....something they don't seem willing to do.....unless they had drop tanks to the 767)

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 92):Yes but both are less than daily IIRC. It has been the rumor for the longest time that DL would move a 744 to SYD and add MEL daily with the LR. (and have VA 1) go daily on BNE or 2) add extra MEL frequencies on peak days.)

I believe VA will go 3x daily eventually at LAX. They have been telling that to their handler for staff planning. As I recall they have a 77W on lease to Etihad at the moment.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 92):But they have to start somewhere. Its like DTW, It may work.....once DL grows in HKG. IMO, LAX and SEA are two places DL will look at to re-start mainland-HKG flights.

True but DL (and NW previously) seems to struggle big time in HKG compared to UADL only has a single NRT these days, while UA manages 7 destinations from there.
Shooting for LAX nonstop would be a very difficult challenge imo..

And China in general. Hell Asia in general outside of Japan.
but times are changing.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):DL only has a single NRT these days, while UA manages 7 destinations from there.

Oh its no kidding that Delta has gotten its collective ass kicked in Hong Kong.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):Shooting for LAX nonstop would be a very difficult challenge imo..

I agree but they gotta go from somewhere. Still think SEA with the smallest aircraft possible will be the first to start.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):I believe VA will go 3x daily eventually at LAX. They have been telling that to their handler for staff planning. As I recall they have a 77W on lease to Etihad at the moment.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):Still waiting on ORD, DCA/IAD, DFW, and Boston (year-round). Seems like Delta is just nibbling at the edges of the two more established network airlines from LAX.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Delta, unlikely American, is trying to build an airline that doesn't have to live off of employee's being at the very bottom of the industry. Thus they aren't going to do a big capacity dump into the market. LAX will keep slowly growing. ORD/Texas and other Transcons will come.

but if you looking for a 100 flight capacity dump then you will be waiting forever.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):Reality check. There are markets from LAX that UA and AA locked up long ago.

jeesh man. Why do you have to do this in every single Delta thread? We getting, you have some kind of creepy love thing for AA and really think they are going to rule the world. Do you have to keeping posting this garbage in every.....single.....thread?

The way I see it is, LAX has no super dominant carrier like DFW, ATL, MIA, DTW or SFO hubs have. Yes there are several carriers with a decent sized operation at LAX, The now 3 legacy carriers, will likely battle each other for market share, hoping a top dog will emerge as a clear favorite. UA, AA & DL have, and have had, a decent presence in the Southland area for a long time, even more so with their multiple alliance partners that use LAX as an Intl connection point.

IMO, LAX is too much of an important crossroads for all 3 legacy carriers, ie... DL, UA & AA (via their QF partner) use LAX as a gateway for their Australia services, (UA also uses SFO). Point is, no one of these 3 carriers can afford to ignore the huge O & D, plus the opportunities for connections that LAX does provide, therefore there will be no stand alone winner no matter how hard they go at each other. Which is the reason why carriers will always increase and decrease in this market, trying so hard to make any possible option workable.

Except the International routes, most market fares from LAX will be dictated more by the smaller LCC and ULCC carriers that also bring a fair amount of traffic to LAX, ie... AS who is operating code shared flights from LAX all over their network for 2 of the three legacies I spoke of, AS has placed themselves in a very lucrative position, by keeping their eggs spread out, a very well thought out action plan, that has paid off for AS's bottom line for quite a long time.

Of course WN and VX are also in the mix of carriers providing a decent amount of flights to LAX, I think unlike many hub cities like ORD, IAD, SEA, or IAH there will not be just one large presence from any carrier. JFK comes to mind where despite both AA & DL there is not a stand alone winner, and likely won't be either.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 97):The way I see it is, LAX has no super dominant carrier like DFW, ATL, MIA, DTW or SFO hubs have. Yes there are several carriers with a decent sized operation at LAX, The now 3 legacy carriers, will likely battle each other for market share, hoping a top dog will emerge as a clear favorite. UA, AA & DL have, and have had, a decent presence in the Southland area for a long time, even more so with their multiple alliance partners that use LAX as an Intl connection point.

IMO, LAX is too much of an important crossroads for all 3 legacy carriers, ie... DL, UA & AA (via their QF partner) use LAX as a gateway for their Australia services, (UA also uses SFO). Point is, no one of these 3 carriers can afford to ignore the huge O & D, plus the opportunities for connections that LAX does provide, therefore there will be no stand alone winner no matter how hard they go at each other. Which is the reason why carriers will always increase and decrease in this market, trying so hard to make any possible option workable.

It seems to me that a lot of folks are far too caught up in a.net narrative of the past few years to recognize the basic truth here. No one carrier, not UA, not AA and not DL, is ever going to have anything approaching a dominant position at LAX. What separates the three main carriers is a few percentage points of market share. Given the infrastructure scarcity at LAX, that simply is not going to change.

Here is a little perspective. I took a normal week in July and pulled the total seats offered at LAX and the three NYC airports. As you can see, LAX is clearly the more competitive environment. The scale of the size variance between the three carriers at LAX is actually pretty small. Delta clearly intends on shrinking it further. LAX is truly a different animal than any other major U.S. market. You can't apply the "hub dominance" idea that works in other markets to gauge a carrier's success.

The question comes back to, can Delta make LAX work? I offer up a simple suggestion. It already does. Anybody who thinks Delta is unprofitable at LAX simply has no basis in fact to suggest that. To the contrary, I am confident that Delta's LAX operation is already a strong bottom-line contributor to the network. I believe that UA and AA are as well.

LAX is a capacity-constrained environment in a high-demand region. Industry revenue performance is strong as well. That is a recipe for success for any carrier that has significant assets at LAX. In this case, that is several carriers.

Southwest especially is a big factor in LA being the largest airline in California, and now later in the year will finally have the green light to grow its LAX operation with receipt of 4 additional gates.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):Reality check. There are markets from LAX that UA and AA locked up long ago.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):Now with the US/AA merger, AA locks up DCA even more, adds mass on the Boston and RDU end respectively of LAX/Boston and the upcoming LAX/RDU, and arguably locks up PHL and Charlotte.

That isn't totally fair, DL will always be at a disadvantage in DFW, ORD, IAD, DCA, PHL, and CLT. AA, UA, and US have hubs in those airports. Look at AA on LAX-IAD, 3 flights with a 738 is hardly locking things up. DCA is slot controlled and limited in the LAX market some might even argue that AS stronger in DCA-LAX as they have been there longer.

Personally, I think it will hurt, but I think in time DL could/will do at least 3 daily flights with a 738 in all 6 of those markets (except of course DCA which unless the perimeter limits go away will be off limits).

On another note, I think DL could do some really great things by taking 25-35 of the 739ERs that are on the way and outfit them for LAX service. I would also base some of the incoming 717s in LAX as well.

DL could make Chicago, Dallas, Houston, DC work with a limited but competitive schedule. They might not be the most lucrative routes but int he long run they will add value across the system, most notably in Southern California, where they can focus on LAX-originating traffic.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):That isn't totally fair, DL will always be at a disadvantage in DFW, ORD, IAD, DCA, PHL, and CLT. AA, UA, and US have hubs in those airports. Look at AA on LAX-IAD, 3 flights with a 738 is hardly locking things up. DCA is slot controlled and limited in the LAX market some might even argue that AS stronger in DCA-LAX as they have been there longer.

Exactly..........how do UA and AA do LAX-DTW/MSP/ATL/SLC? That would be a similar comparison, but those in the UA/AA camp would say it wasn't a fair comparison.

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 103):So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

With so many entrenched carriers, I think DL needs to expand smartly and slowly before it can start really taking on AA, UA, or WN. Then again, these carriers aren't gonna take kindly, so we'll see.

As much as I prefer DL dominance (due to my obvious bias) isn't it refreshing for a lot of posters to see an operation like LAX with a bunch of carriers with strong operations? Seems kinda like the old days I was too young to remember

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

Maybe in the short-term, but I wouldn't think DL would bother sponsoring the likes of Staples Center, Kings, Lakers, Grammy's, etc. if there wasn't an interest in capturing local attention/passengers.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):Personally, I think it will hurt, but I think in time DL could/will do at least 3 daily flights with a 738 in all 6 of those markets (except of course DCA which unless the perimeter limits go away will be off limits).

If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

But need to remember - place like ORD, DFW are much larger local market then the DL hubs of ATL, DTW or MSP.

In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):With so many entrenched carriers, I think DL needs to expand smartly and slowly before it can start really taking on AA, UA, or WN. Then again, these carriers aren't gonna take kindly, so we'll see.

As much as I prefer DL dominance (due to my obvious bias) isn't it refreshing for a lot of posters to see an operation like LAX with a bunch of carriers with strong operations? Seems kinda like the old days I was too young to remember

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 107):If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 110):
But need to remember - place like ORD, DFW are much larger local market then the DL hubs of ATL, DTW or MSP.

In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

Goodness. I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Not one of these carriers offers a comprehensive product at LAX. This market is huge and the largest carrier offers less than 200 daily flights.

While ORD and DFW are missing holes in Delta's network at LAX "today", let's not assume that every major corporate contract requires ORD and DFW nonstops. While it is clear that some on here would like to discount the importance of the LAX-ATL market, that would be a mistake. In fact, besides being the third largest music production city in the U.S., Atlanta is already the #3 movie/television center as well. The later is growing particularly fast. In fact, NYC/LAX/ATL /BNA are where the entertainment industry action is and only one airline has positioned itself to take advantage of this so far.

Quote:Georgia was home to 333 feature films, television movies and series, commercials, and music videos that were shot across the state during fiscal year 2012. Georgia-filmed movies slated to hit theatres in the next few months include “Flight” starring Denzel Washington on November 2, and “Parental Guidance” starring Billy Crystal and Bette Midler on December 25.

A pair of Midtown-filmed releases will come in Spring of 2013. On April 13. Legendary Entertainment will release the Harrison Ford project “42” (with Midtown scenes) and Universal will release, “Identity Thief” starring Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy on May 10.

Other Georgia projects expected to be released next year include two Midtown-filmed projects, “The Internship” starring Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson; and the “Devil’s Knot” starring Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon. Also , “The Killing Season” starring John Travolta and Robert De Niro and the Savannah-filmed “CBGB,” are Georgia-filmed releases expected next year

In addition, a record number of television shows were shot in Georgia during FY12, including AMC’s “The Walking Dead,” CW’s “The Vampire Diaries,” BET’s “Reed Between the Lines,” “The Game,” and “Let’s Stay Together”; “Family Feud”; VH1’s “Single Ladies”; USA’s “Necessary Roughness” and “Royal Pains”; Lifetime’s “Drop Dead Diva”; and many more.

Feature films in preproduction or currently in production in Georgia include the second feature in the billion dollar ‘Hunger Games’ franchise “Catching Fire”; “Scary Movie 5”; “Getaway”; “Last Vegas” starring Michael Douglas, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman and Robert De Niro; and “Ten” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Our competitive incentives, talented crew, diverse locations and accessibility give us an edge when productions are picking a location,” said Lee Thomas, the Director of the Georgia Film, Music & Digital Entertainment Office. “All of these assets build upon an infrastructure that is increasingly positioning Georgia among the go-to locations for entertainment productions.”

Let's not forget that Turner Broadcasting and Cox Communications are also ATL-based.

The point is that ATL is an important market to key corporations based in L.A. and neither AA or UA serve it. In fact, not a single airline at LAX can offer everything a corporation could want. Corporations will chose based on a variety of criteria.
Just because Delta doesn't have DFW or ORD today doesn't mean it can't compete for its fair share of L.A. originating corporate business.

I'd also remind everyone that it would be very Delta-like for the carrier to enter both ORD and DFW at some point soon. When that happens, i'm sure we'll hear criticism from the same cynics who said that LGA-ORD would never last. Just watch.

Again, at the end of the day, all three of these carriers will offer a comprehensive network from LAX and all three will do just fine. Demand is so big, and capacity is so constrained, that there is room for all three. If people would take their blinders off, they'd see that is what is happening already.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 92):Yes but both are less than daily IIRC. It has been the rumor for the longest time that DL would move a 744 to SYD and add MEL daily with the LR. (and have VA 1) go daily on BNE or 2) add extra MEL frequencies on peak days.)

I've heard a similar rumor from the Australian end. The 77W is, arguably, too big for VA to build critical mass in MEL and BNE, and therefore the smaller 77L could work better. With DL taking one, VA would be in a position to build up the other.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):I believe VA will go 3x daily eventually at LAX. They have been telling that to their handler for staff planning. As I recall they have a 77W on lease to Etihad at the moment.

They won't be unless they either (1) find some more aircraft or (2) end AUH. They don't lease aircraft to EY (except for the once per week AUH-KUL they operate for EY) but they do fly 3 times per week SYD-AUH. Apparently those flights are doing too great and the relationship with EY is rumored to be cooling off a little so maybe they will terminate those flights. We shall see. From my understanding, though, VA were somewhat reluctant to put all their eggs in one basket, as it where. If LAX was their only long haul destination then they would bleed pretty hard if the US economy went southward etc.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 110):In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

Excellent point.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 111):In fact, NYC/LAX/ATL /BNA are where the entertainment industry action is and only one airline has positioned itself to take advantage of this so far.

Interesting, because AA and UA still have the bulk of the entertainment industry contracts. And, they don't fly to Atlanta nonstop. (AA does fly nonstop to BNA.)

As to the "action" you speak of, if it is largely "below the line stuff," then it is not resulting in much premium travel. The talent (producers/actors/studio execs) is still based in NYC, LA, London, Miami, and Sydney. Except for NYC, those aren't strong nodes in the Delta network.

Just for fun. Take a look at the other industries with prominent roles in LA's economy, for example the Defense Industry and even the much smaller, but still culturally-important Art Industry. Who is better positioned to serve the travel patterns of those industries? For the D Industry, from LAX, the domestic pattern would have points in San Diego, Tuscon, Dallas, Boston, South Florida, and DC.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 113):As to the "action" you speak of, if it is largely "below the line stuff," then it is not resulting in much premium travel. The talent (producers/actors/studio execs) is still based in NYC, LA, London, Miami, and Sydney. Except for NYC, those aren't strong nodes in the Delta network.

A lot of "below the line" is definitely not premium revenue. I worked in a "below the line" job in LA and it was freelance and while I was a silver on DL during that time period, it was all leisure.

Whether or not DL can do it in LAX, it's amazing to me that they're even in the mix, considering that UA and AA have been in the LAX-ORD/NYC market for ages and DL is, comparatively a newcomer to these markets. UA and AA have been in the market this long and yet, for DL to even be in the competition is really something.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 107):If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

Well your first comment is a which comes first, if they had the routes they could get the contracts and if they had the contracts they could get the routes. Whats you point?

have you ever heard of the economic idea that overtime all costs are variable? Overtime everything is a temporary impediment. I don't think anyone is saying that DL has all the cards, but I also don't think anyone can argue that in the long term any one airline is better in LA than any other airline.

I personally think DL is in the leveraging the most in LA except for a not having a JV with KE. DL with a JV with KE, VA, and VS and the routes mentioned above, and they will be in a very good position. Once again not significantly larger than anyone else, but I think better.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):On another note, I think DL could do some really great things by taking 25-35 of the 739ERs that are on the way and outfit them for LAX service. I would also base some of the incoming 717s in LAX as well.

Highly doubtful. For one, the 739s will be back filling a lot of the 57' capacity that will be drawn down over the next few years. Two. 25 frames are A LOT. Delta could run 10x daily LAX-LAS with just 2 a/c (barring MTC issues). They will be rotated through-out the system as all a/c are now but I don't see much changing and 717s going out west I really don't see any time soon.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 117):Well your first comment is a which comes first, if they had the routes they could get the contracts and if they had the contracts they could get the routes. Whats you point?

This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

Even where they have the contracts, such as one they share with AA that involves lots of travel between LAX and BOS/DFW/DC, that has not been enough to allow Delta to establish a foothold in any of the three city-pairs.

People seem to operate under the impression most companies have exclusive contracts with one airline. They don't. You get a larger share of business with a larger network, but the number of exclusive contracts is quite small.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

That's what the marketing department is for, both the local one in LA and marketing at the GO in ATL, to find those customers and try and get those contracts for DL. I'm sure you knew that, but I just wanted to make sure because it sounded like you had no idea what the marketing reps were for.

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):for an airline that has such a great network,Delta spends a lot of time trying to build up in other peoples hubs or backyard.

No airline has had a 'backyard' since deregulation was ushered in in 1978. Not every customer wants to connect. All of the remaining legacy airlines are trying to expand their depth and breadth to cover the entire country as best they can. Why shouldn't DL do the same?

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):When it all comes down to it,for an airline that has such a great network,Delta spends a lot of time trying to build up in other peoples hubs or backyard.

Much like what WN, everyone's PERFECT airline has done at ATL?

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):For such a comprehensive domestic network in ATL,JFK,DTW,and SLC! Delta does a lot expansion outside its hubs at times.

It's called growth. No matter how many hubs you have or where they're at, there are going to be routes outside your hubs and P2P routes that won't involve your hubs, at all. It happens with ALL legacies, not just DL.

No airline has had a 'backyard' since deregulation was ushered in in 1978. Not every customer wants to connect.

I understand that I'm not saying its not their right to. The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 126):The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

If you're in Seattle and want to fly to Sydney, DL either has to put you onto a codeshare with AS, another airline, or via SLC to get you to the LAX gateway. If the total SEA-LAX market is there to be shared, why not take a piece of it, and then place your SEA-SYD pax on your own metal the entire way via the most efficient routing?

The whole idea of routing everything via a hub is very inefficient for city pairs with a market size to support nonstop service.

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 126):I understand that I'm not saying its not their right to. The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

So, how does DL use their hub network to make traffic out of LAX work? LAX-ORD is probably already connecting thru SLC.....the same with LAX-BOS. The problem is that it puts DL at a disadvantage compared to AA and UA out of LAX with their nonstops and you want DL to do WHAT, keep running them thru their hubs??

When its all said and done, DL provided a large percentage of the profits the air lines in the United States had in 2012. Not everything is going to be perfect, but I'm willing to give the executive team the benefit of the doubt.

For those who are strong supporters of American, United, Southwest, or any other carrier, I offer you this: If Delta Air Lines is blowing it with these new routes, isn't it just strengthening your favorite carrier? Shouldn't you be supporting behavior that you consider 'silly' or 'risky'?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

Even where they have the contracts, such as one they share with AA that involves lots of travel between LAX and BOS/DFW/DC, that has not been enough to allow Delta to establish a foothold in any of the three city-pairs.

I pretty much completely disagree with everything you say, but lets just assume you are correct and Delta has trouble in these "trophy" markets you mention. Who DOES get the traffic in those markets? AA? UA? WN?

The answer, of course, is ALLOF THE ABOVE. A company with offices in Chicago gets to shop its business around to the lowest bidder. It works out great for the company. Its not always so great for the airline.

In the meantime, Delta gets its share of NYC, along with virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, MSP and a significant share of the midsize markets. This allows Delta to maintain a unit revenue premium, which it has done for a few years now. It also allows Delta to achieve profits that AA and UA can only dream of, despite their supposed advantage at LAX and other "key" markets.

Its all well and good to say that AA and UA have some advantage in LAX, but if you can't prove that they can TAKE advantage of strength, than what kind of argument do you really have?

For instance here in DFW, there are so many loyal fliers with Delta that won't fly AA to the west coast on their no stops, but insist on flying Delta thru other cities. And I understand that works the same for OAL customers who won't fly Delta out of Delta's hubs. I truly believe that each airline's marketing and revenue departments know exactly or pretty close as to what the competitors are flying and what revenues are. It just depends on where to deploy resources and what the bottom line each is trying to achieve.

Delta will eventually will get back in the DFW-LAX market and one or two other markets on the West coast...time will tell, lots of maneuvering taking place in the "behind the scenes"!

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 132):In the meantime, Delta gets its share of NYC, along with virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, MSP and a significant share of the midsize markets. This allows Delta to maintain a unit revenue premium, which it has done for a few years now. It also allows Delta to achieve profits that AA and UA can only dream of, despite their supposed advantage at LAX and other "key" markets.

Here's the problem with your line of reasoning? If that is all well and good, you know Delta's "virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, and MSP", then why is Delta still trying to break into the LHR and LAX markets? Are they just trying to grow the business or are there real holes in its network that put a lie to this virtual monopoly and profits you speak of.

I am going to venture a guess that Delta has learned much more from the last recession than you have. During the last major downturn in the industry, following the events of 9/11, we learned that connecting traffic declined more than O&D traffic, that certain parts of the country were affected by the downturn more than others (for instance, the Atlanta-area much more than the entire state of Texas), and that certain international markets were more stable than others (LHR, not CDG).

So, while Delta may be enjoying these profits now, it seems to be under no delusion (as you seem to be) that its virtual monopoly at ATL, DTW, and MSP will insulate it from the vagaries of the market should another industry downturn happen, hence the push at LAX and LHR. (Heck, the Atlanta housing market is still tanking at a time when the LA housing market has taken off.)

Now, while I can appreciate Delta's strategic vision on these matters, it seems you cannot appreciate the fact that Delta's virtual monopoly won't mean much during a recession and that those "dream" profits have come at the expense of United and AA, who have been lagging financially and operationally for various reasons (i.e., merger and bankruptcy). Given those impediments, we don't really have a clear picture yet of how sustainable Delta's profits are once AA and UA really start competing. From Delta's own strategic initiatives, we can surmise however that Delta management thinks these two airlines have an advantage over Delta in more important markets (like LAX and LHR) that cannot be tolerated.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):Here's the problem with your line of reasoning? If that is all well and good, you know Delta's "virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, and MSP", then why is Delta still trying to break into the LHR and LAX markets? Are they just trying to grow the business or are there real holes in its network that put a lie to this virtual monopoly and profits you speak of.

Because revenue growth is an important metric among publicly traded companies? You're more likely to achieve larger revenue growth among a new market than a matured market, right? Kinda like how Walmart continues to break into new markets with its SuperCenter concept, and Target's doing the same with its grocery concept.

Nor do I understand your logic, anyway, Professor. If DL sees low-hanging fruit at LAX, it should avoid it... because UA and AA have the market locked up? Doesn't make much sense? We live in a capitalist society I thought.

It is an internet message board. Who cares about question marks, punctuation, spelling, or grammar? And, I say that as a Professor of Literature with degrees from Yale. Now, if I were writing a paper/book for publication or you were writing a paper for my class, there would be a point to your remark about question marks. But, honestly, who takes what is being said here seriously enough to care about those things???? ... LOL.

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 145):Funny that you "conveniently" forgot to mention that DTW was recently canceled after being tried unsuccessfully. In addition NW also flew SEA-HKG as has been previously mentioned.

No, I did not. He was asking about legacy NW routes; NW never operated DTW-HKG.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 111): In fact, NYC/LAX/ATL /BNA are where the entertainment industry action is and only one airline has positioned itself to take advantage of this so far.

Yeah, ummm, no.

Atlanta has its importance, but its not Nashville, and its certainly not Miami (which two studios recently rolled into its NYC 3-class travel policy, which lead to AA making its MIALAX lounge policies aligned with JFKLAX/SFO), nor Toronto or Vancouver. Thanks for the laugh, though. Once those subsidies run out, off to the next cheap production city. Only LA, NY, Miami and Nashville retain consistently strong entertainment industries and studios.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 150):Atlanta has its importance, but its not Nashville, and its certainly not Miami (which two studios recently rolled into its NYC 3-class travel policy, which lead to AA making its MIALAX lounge policies aligned with JFKLAX/SFO), nor Toronto or Vancouver. Thanks for the laugh, though. Once those subsidies run out, off to the next cheap production city. Only LA, NY, Miami and Nashville retain consistently strong entertainment industries and studios.

You shouldn't be laughing because Atlanta's position in the entertainment industry continues to quietly grow. Atlanta's problem has been that much of its production has been either made-for-cable or targeted toward a niche audience, and soaring costs against a limited audience has hampered growth. But just think of the prospects if Tyler Perry is able to develop a series for a major network, or if Turner was able to co-develop a series with a major network, sharing the cost, or if TV moves toward an on-demand system ... with traditional network television audiences decaying, such suggestions aren't unrealistic.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 150):Atlanta has its importance, but its not Nashville, and its certainly not Miami (which two studios recently rolled into its NYC 3-class travel policy, which lead to AA making its MIALAX lounge policies aligned with JFKLAX/SFO), nor Toronto or Vancouver. Thanks for the laugh, though. Once those subsidies run out, off to the next cheap production city. Only LA, NY, Miami and Nashville retain consistently strong entertainment industries and studios.

Once again your responses are devoid of facts and incredibly condescending. Atlanta has grown by leaps and bounds and the number of production companies, not to mention the recording industry connections, in the city are well known. LA, NY, Miami (which is not remotely in the same league as the first two although I'm sure you'd love to pretend that they are) and Nashville are not the only cities with important entertainment industry connections. The business world changes are evolves, your constant assertions that NY, LA, and MIA are somehow the center of the world and the only important places to conduct business certainly didn't help UA, AA, or any other airline stay out of bankruptcy while companies like NW and DL were operating in lackluster cities like MSP, DTW, ATL, and did just as poorly/well. You are so Miami and AA-centric that you have lost all credibility; as usual a thread about another city somehow had to have something about Miami thrown in to boost it to levels that it doesn't belong. Yawn...

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 144):It is an internet message board. Who cares about question marks, punctuation, spelling, or grammar? And, I say that as a Professor of Literature with degrees from Yale. Now, if I were writing a paper/book for publication or you were writing a paper for my class, there would be a point to your remark about question marks. But, honestly, who takes what is being said here seriously enough to care about those things???? ... LOL.

Because, "professor" (and even YOU should realize this) that grammar and punctuation make a difference in how things are interpreted, whether they are on the internet, in a published work or a class paper. If you want to get your point across, you best be able to punctuate it clearly. Surely, YOU know that.

In all the rest of these arguments, those that are either predicting that DL will fail or that they shouldn't even try to compete would, apparently, rather that DL just throw in the towel, rather than try to make it work. DL may NOT have the most optimal hub system, but they are working with what they have and do seem to be profitable while doing it. They are filling in some of the "holes" in their network with P2P routes, increasing service in hubs AND focus cities and even developing new hubs. ALL that is called growth as far as I know and that and profits is the name of the game, right?

Guys, outside of the Atlanta hip-hop/rap scene and companies like CNN/Turner being based there, the remainder of the entertainment industry is very thin and only exist thanks to tax incentives. For instance at the moment Georgia is offering up to 30% offsets for production expenses.
However once that incentive expires or someone else comes along with something better, the activity will certainly migrate.

This pattern has been repeated over and over - from New Mexico, to Idaho, to Toronto, to Carolinas. Put money on the table, productions come. Once the money expires they flee leaving empty stages, and a support industry unemployed.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 154):Guys, outside of the Atlanta hip-hop/rap scene and companies like CNN/Turner being based there, the remainder of the entertainment industry is very thin and only exist thanks to tax incentives. For instance at the moment Georgia is offering up to 30% offsets for production expenses.
However once that incentive expires or someone else comes along with something better, the activity will certainly migrate.

This pattern has been repeated over and over - from New Mexico, to Idaho, to Toronto, to Carolinas. Put money on the table, productions come. Once the money expires they flee leaving empty stages, and a support industry unemployed.

No disagreement, but my comments were in reference toward Tyler Perry as well as in-house Turner productions. If they continue success, both would likely remain in the area, perhaps snowballing additional projects, but efforts have been hampered by demands for high production costs against limited audiences. Plus Tyler Perry would need to branch beyond black-orientated programming to reach mainstream success. There's already a demand for low-cost programming.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 118):Highly doubtful. For one, the 739s will be back filling a lot of the 57' capacity that will be drawn down over the next few years. Two. 25 frames are A LOT. Delta could run 10x daily LAX-LAS with just 2 a/c (barring MTC issues). They will be rotated through-out the system as all a/c are now but I don't see much changing and 717s going out west I really don't see any time soon.

Thats kind of what I am saying. They are getting rid of 757's and replacing them with 739s. Why not use the first 739s as an opportunity to fashion them like AA is doing with the A321. And the 717 is perfect for LA in that it wouldn't require a ton of aircraft add additional capacity.

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 152):LA, NY, Miami (which is not remotely in the same league as the first two although I'm sure you'd love to pretend that they are) and Nashville are not the only cities with important entertainment industry connections.

LA and NYC are the Alphas, Miami and Nashville are the Betas, and that's how it goes. D.C. is probably the next most important thanks to Discovery, which for whatever reasons is insistent that it stays D.C.-centric (as is Scripps out of Knoxville). I work in this industry so I know how it operates quite well. With the exception of CNN, all the development work for the Turner networks is done out of New York City. Filming in itself, which is popular in New Orleans, Atlanta and Detorit, does not stimulate air traffic demand as below the line work is locally sourced. That's reality. Miami is home to the fourth largest broadcast network and a major center for television production and development, which means far more than being the place where "Identity Theft" was shot. And Nashville's importance doesn't need to be explained. If somebody is going to falsely make Atlanta out to be some major entertainment media center, I simply present facts that prove them wrong.

Again, the entertainment industry is so weak in Atlanta, that TNT and TBS base almost all the non-figurehead players in New York City, from business affairs to creative execs.

When WilliamMorrisEndeavor opens an Atlanta office to compliment its LA, NYC, Nashville, Miami and London operations, then we can start make pretending Atlanta's entertainment industry has relevance.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 140):UA operated this for awhile too - before they acquired the Pacific operations from Pan Am. IIRC, their initial TPAC service prior to Pan Am was SEA and PDX-NRT and SEA-HKG with a 747SP.

You are indeed correct that UA's first International route (except trans border flights to Canada) was ORD-SEA/PDX-NRT it operated 6x weekly via SEA and 1x weekly via PDX (Tu only, both directions) however this was operated before UA bought PA's Pacific network, and since UA got the SP's when they got that network from PA, there is no way they could have used the 747sp. This route was operated by 747-200's.

As far as the SEA-HKG route is concerned, again you are correct, UA did operate this service prior to the PA Pacific routes were purchased. Since UA did not have an aircraft that had the range for this route 2 DC-10-30's were acquired from CP to operate this new route.

As you mentioned, a lot of this isn't really new, just expansion and what not. DL has held its own vis-a-vis its LAX expansion over the last few years; there's no reason to believe that they're suddenly going to change strategy and pull back. LAX is an important market, and DL isn't about to start alienating people again just for funsies.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 98):It seems to me that a lot of folks are far too caught up in a.net narrative of the past few years to recognize the basic truth here.

Precisely!

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

You're aware that there is more to this world than DFW, Chicago, and DC? Sure those are currently holes in DL's network, but that they don't now fly those routes doesn't mean that they never will, or that this will always leave them at some disadvantage to UA and AA. I know it's fun to think that, but the world doesn't exactly work that way.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):Even where they have the contracts, such as one they share with AA that involves lots of travel between LAX and BOS/DFW/DC, that has not been enough to allow Delta to establish a foothold in any of the three city-pairs.

There's also the flip side to your argument, the one you conveniently fail to mention. In spite of the "major disadvantage" they suffer by not flying from LAX to BOS, DFW, or IAD/DCA they were still able to win a contract that they share with AA; a contract that involves a lot of travel between those cities. Could it be that the disadvantage isn't as great as you make it out to be? Why give DL a share of the contract, when AA gets them to BOS, DFW, and DC? Could it be that there's more to all of this than whether DL flies between LAX and BOS, DFW, and DC? With as many airlines as are currently competing in those markets, profit margins are likely quite thin, and the corporate contract revenues in these markets are probably not as stellar as you and others make them out to be.

In a subsequent post, you mention that DL has learned more from the recession than posters on this board, I agree. If DL needs to enter these markets on a year-round basis, they will just as they've entered other markets they needed to satisfy clients. At present they have not, which speaks just as loudly in the other direction in spite of people ignoring that fact.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 132):The answer, of course, is ALLOF THE ABOVE. A company with offices in Chicago gets to shop its business around to the lowest bidder. It works out great for the company. Its not always so great for the airline.

Precisely!

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 132):Its all well and good to say that AA and UA have some advantage in LAX, but if you can't prove that they can TAKE advantage of strength, than what kind of argument do you really have?

Exactly, and that's something that none of the naysayers ever really discusses.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):From Delta's own strategic initiatives, we can surmise however that Delta management thinks these two airlines have an advantage over Delta in more important markets (like LAX and LHR) that cannot be tolerated.

Perhaps, yet in spite of these "advantages," both of those airlines filed bankruptcy just like DL did without all of these supposed advantages. In spite of all of the myriad corporate contracts and "cornerstone" strategy, AA was losing money hand over fist before entering Bankruptcy. In spite of its excellent hubs, AA was forced into Bankruptcy. Before WN and other LCCs made it an impossibility, DL was the world's most profitable airline flying a large chunk of its passengers to Florida. Things change, but this notion that only places like LAX, LHR, DFW, ORD, etc. matter is myopic. Of course these markets are important, but they are not all that matters in this industry, and I think you know that.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 144):And, I say that as a Professor of Literature with degrees from Yale.

That your degrees are from Yale is immaterial to the conversation or whether you can produce a grammatically correct sentence, other than for ego reasons. A graduate in English Literature from any accredited 4-year program should be more than able to write grammatically correct sentences. Besides, when you were Ladevale, I thought your degrees were from Berkley???

Quoting compensateme (Reply 147):Do you have anything to support that LAX is a money-losing station for DL?

Of course he doesn't. Just like a certain AA fanboy doesn't. That's what bothers me about this exercise every time DL at LAX comes up, people post as though they have access to profit/loss numbers. Yet even if people who have access to those numbers post here, they're not revealing them. By his own admission, LDV doesn't even work in the airline industry, so his posts are mere speculation, just like everyone else's.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):Given those impediments, we don't really have a clear picture yet of how sustainable Delta's profits are once AA and UA really start competing.

Yeah we've heard that before. Just wait until WN and FL complete their merger, DL will tank as an airline. Just wait until AA can compete (something we've been hearing for the better part of a decade), DL will tank as an airline etc., etc. You seem to have a desire for this to happen given how often you've posted something along these lines. But when are UA and AA actually going to start competing? AA just announced a merger with US. We don't yet know how well that merger is going to turn out. It may be a smooth transition, and it may not be. We just don't know at this time. Until then, everything posted here is mere speculation.

AA's inability to turn a profit over the last several years was in spite of the cornerstone strategy and their strength in London. Even if they were unable to turn a profit, they were still flying all the routes they fly today. Yet in spite of all this, DL was still able to turn a profit. In other words, I really don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to want it to be.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 158):And Nashville's importance doesn't need to be explained. If somebody is going to falsely make Atlanta out to be some major entertainment media center, I simply present facts that prove them wrong.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of "facts." The fact is that you don't actually post a whole lot of facts on here. You say a lot of things, but very little of it is actually backed up by any verifiable facts. You speak about all the data you have access to, yet it's clear that most (probably all) of it is woefully outdated. Well that, or you just continue to post the outdated data because it serves you better than more current data. Either way, you seem to have a fundamentally misunderstanding of what facts actually are. Just because you post something, doesn't make it a fact. It's been clear over the last decade that you've been on this site, that the majority of your posts are nothing but speculation/guessing cloaked as fact.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 160):Perhaps, yet in spite of these "advantages," both of those airlines filed bankruptcy just like DL did without all of these supposed advantages. In spite of all of the myriad corporate contracts and "cornerstone" strategy, AA was losing money hand over fist before entering Bankruptcy. In spite of its excellent hubs, AA was forced into Bankruptcy. Before WN and other LCCs made it an impossibility, DL was the world's most profitable airline flying a large chunk of its passengers to Florida. Things change, but this notion that only places like LAX, LHR, DFW, ORD, etc. matter is myopic. Of course these markets are important, but they are not all that matters in this industry, and I think you know that.

Exactly. At the end of the day, DL made more money than all of them last year...

It seems to me that DL is serious about boosting revenue by way of increased corporate contracts. Something they've been very successful with in NYC and they are continuing that strategy in LA. I said it last year that DL will be focusing heavily on the LA market come 2013 now that they've pretty much reached their pinnacle in NYC. The new T4 will be open on schedule this summer along with the recently announced RJ concourse expansion and the eventual demolition of T3 (that day can't come soon enough).

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):Now, while I can appreciate Delta's strategic vision on these matters, it seems you cannot appreciate the fact that Delta's virtual monopoly won't mean much during a recession and that those "dream" profits have come at the expense of United and AA, who have been lagging financially and operationally for various reasons (i.e., merger and bankruptcy). Given those impediments, we don't really have a clear picture yet of how sustainable Delta's profits are once AA and UA really start competing. From Delta's own strategic initiatives, we can surmise however that Delta management thinks these two airlines have an advantage over Delta in more important markets (like LAX and LHR) that cannot be tolerated.

So basically, what you are saying is that now that that the AA and UA "sleeping giants" are awakening, Delta is screwed because it isn't the largest carrier in a few markets you determine to be most important?

I don't disagree that Delta has had to make some aggressive moves to grow in some top O&D markets. Unlike AA and UA, DL wasn't born with the silver spoon in its mouth. AA and UA have been huge in the major O&D markets since the beginning of the industry. Delta was the sleepy Southern airline that could.

But let's examine your suggestion that Delta's management thinks it needs to grow in certain key markets. To that I answer "duh". But isn't that exactly what they've been doing? People talk about LAX like Delta is some distant, minor player. That is simply NOT true. That list of markets Delta doesn't serve from LAX has progressively gotten shorter to the point that we are basically talking about ORD and DFW now. How long before that is even true anymore?

In fact, Delta is in far better position to compete at LAX over the long run than AA is in NYC. Delta's current capacity share and future potential are far closer to AA's at LAX than AA's capacity versus Delta in New York. So why aren't we talking about AA's long-term risks in these markets?

Let's be very clear though. Delta's superior profit performance isn't being driven by NYC or LAX. It is being driven by ATL, DTW and MSP. Those hub are the cash cows of the system. Their success allows Delta to make the investments in NYC and LAX that we are discussing. They allow the strategic investment in Virgin Atlantic. Nothing that AA or UA do in a no-growth environment is going to change this fact. They can get their own houses in order and start producing profits, but they aren't going to be stealing any appreciable amounts of revenue away from Delta. Not in this mature industry.

On the other hand, Delta has been gaining share in LAX, and particularly in NYC. As both of those markets approach the point where capacity growth is no longer feasible, we end up with a situation where status quo sets in. LAX still has some room for small amounts of growth. NYC growth opportunities pretty much come from whoever has the most slot flexibility at JFK. That is Delta.

Atlanta has its importance, but its not Nashville, and its certainly not Miami (which two studios recently rolled into its NYC 3-class travel policy, which lead to AA making its MIALAX lounge policies aligned with JFKLAX/SFO), nor Toronto or Vancouver. Thanks for the laugh, though. Once those subsidies run out, off to the next cheap production city. Only LA, NY, Miami and Nashville retain consistently strong entertainment industries and studios.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 158): I work in this industry so I know how it operates quite well. With the exception of CNN, all the development work for the Turner networks is done out of New York City. Filming in itself, which is popular in New Orleans, Atlanta and Detorit, does not stimulate air traffic demand as below the line work is locally sourced. That's reality. Miami is home to the fourth largest broadcast network and a major center for television production and development, which means far more than being the place where "Identity Theft" was shot. And Nashville's importance doesn't need to be explained. If somebody is going to falsely make Atlanta out to be some major entertainment media center, I simply present facts that prove them wrong.

The irony here is that you "work in this industry" so you "know it quite well". Its a shame you can't afford others the same respect you feel you are entitled to.

I'll concede much of what you are saying regarding the entertainment industry in terms of impact related to travel. Its simply not my area of expertise. However, I did make it clear in my post that I was primarily referring to production. However, you can certainly acknowledge that Atlanta has a significant impact on the music industry and the growth in film and TV has been rapid. There is a confluence of things going on here that have a larger impact than what you acknowledge.

But my major issue with your argument is this idea that success in the LAX market is solely dependent on the entertainment industry. Its simply not true. For goodness sake, SoCal is a HUGE market. AA could control the entire industry and there would still be room for other carriers to succeed. Delta certainly outperforms AA with the automakers that have major administrative operations in SoCal, like Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai, for example.

I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that Delta is going to overtake AA as the premium carrier in the core coastal O&D's that you seem to think are the only important ones in the airline industry. But it would be ignorant to not at least acknowledge that AA's once dominant position on most of these markets has eroded greatly. Delta has certainly been one of the beneficiaries. Its presence in the NYC-LAX was once a pathetic mess of poor product and big losses. That is no longer the case. With its growing strength in NYC, improving product and strategic moves in LAX and LHR, Delta is clearly determined to make an even bigger impact in these markets.

I'm sure we will continue having these discussions for years. I'll stand on my prognostication record.

I simply don't understand why anyone wouldn't want DL to succeed in these new routes out of LAX. If nothing else, than to preserve their own precious upgrades that they currently enjoy on their airlines.
It has been admitted to by many of our favorite AA fans on here that they buy only the cheap fares, but then upgrade using miles/points/points from other people's accounts. What do you think would happen to those precious upgrades if DL were to fail miserably, and go out of business? Those upgrades would go *poof*, as all the DL medallions that that actually pay for their seats up front would go rushing over to AA, and our AA fans on here on their cheap tickets will end up spending the rest of their flying lives where they belong, in coach.
So from a simple self preservation point of view, I would think you would be rooting DL on, to keep all those money paying DL flyers out of your first class seats? I just don't get it? Maybe it's a jealousy thing?

Quoting OA412 (Reply 160):Perhaps, yet in spite of these "advantages," both of those airlines filed bankruptcy just like DL did without all of these supposed advantages. In spite of all of the myriad corporate contracts and "cornerstone" strategy, AA was losing money hand over fist before entering Bankruptcy. In spite of its excellent hubs, AA was forced into Bankruptcy. Before WN and other LCCs made it an impossibility, DL was the world's most profitable airline flying a large chunk of its passengers to Florida. Things change, but this notion that only places like LAX, LHR, DFW, ORD, etc. matter is myopic. Of course these markets are important, but they are not all that matters in this industry, and I think you know that.

Woah! Waaaayyyy too much common sense. Better stop while you're ahead. I don't think too many will take kindly to such logic on here.
If someone knew nothing about the airline industry, and happened to come across this board and read these the posts, that person would think that only LHR, GRU, MIA, NYC, DFW, ORD, and LAX were the most important cities in the world. Why? Because they have a heavy AA presence in those cities. They would come to the conclusion that if AA is big in a certain city, then that, and only that, is a world important city. Chicago. Check. Big AA presence = world important city. Singapore? Nope. No AA presence, so Singapore is just a little ghost town out there. IF Singapore wanted to become a world class city, the had better get AA to start flying there. But until they do....
Miami. Check. Big AA presence. Denver? Nope. Not a big AA station at all. Denver is just a hill-billy wanna be western outlaw town. Now if AA were to set up a hub in Denver tomorrow, then of course, Denver would become a world class city. But until AA does....., forget it Denver. You mean nothing.
Some logic that is.

Bottom line: All airlines are always looking at ways to increase their flying base, and make more money. That, after all, is the end game of being an airline: to make money. It will be a far, far easier thing for any airline to break into a large market and have a chance of success, than it would be for any airline to attempt to break into a smaller market and have success. History has proven this time and time again. Using the numbers posted above, it will be easier for DL to break into the LAX-DFW/ORD markets, simply because there is a bigger pot of passengers to lure, than it will be for AA to try to break into the LAX-DTW/MSP markets, because there is a smaller number of passengers on those routes.

Thus, if both AA and DL are trying to round out their portfolio out of LAX, it will be certainly easier (but not guaranteed, of course) for DL to make a LAX-DFW route stick as opposed to AA making a LAX-DTW route stick. Simple mathematics. And DL could lose/waste a billion dollars on making sure a LAX-DFW routes sticks, and still make more money than AA. Maybe deep down our AA fans know this, and this is what is causing them unrest?

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.